Well. There is no climb down from China since the latest salvo was fired when Noda "nationalized" the islets and has since insisted that there is no territorial dispute. China is demanding a recognition that there is a dispute and then to put the dispute aside for now. That would be the basis for moving forward. But if Japan continues to hold the line that there is no dispute and that Japan can do what it wants with the islets--nationalized or otherwise--acquiescence on China's part would then be to forfeit any future rights. That won't happen. So could Japan take the step of saying there is a dispute? The reciprocal move from China is then to acknowledge that Japan has de facto control. Climb down accomplished.

But maybe it will take a small war to get to that point. China to be humiliated and acknowledge that Japan has control while the Japanese (after winning the skirmish) say publicly that there is a dispute. A less favorable outcome would be for China to win the skirmish. There will then be the possibility of a much larger conflict because Japan will then surely rearm.

Humiliated and acknowledge? No, either the enemy step over my body or i step over them. You are assuming the players are rational. No, not with Japan and China. There are a lot more emotions beside the little island. If there is war, it is going to be an All in war. So if America is ready for an All-In with China, then i guess Japan will fire the first shot soon.

Not to bash China, as it was legitimately a victim of Japanese brutality, but China's own actions lately bear more of the blame for recent events. It has bullied Tsiwan, Vietnam and almost all of its immediate neighbours in addition to Japan. The Chinese Communist Party, in its quest to retain perpetual power, has used virulent nationalism to deflect attention away from its own shortcomings. This toxic stew is gradually boiling out of control. Add to this a powerful military eager to flex its muscles and increasingly less inclined to obey its civilian masters and you have the perfect recipe for a disastrous war.
This is where it would have been useful for the United States to have expanded its Naval power and maintained a larger presence in the region to deter trouble, an idea that was childishly mocked by President Obama during his debate with Mitt Romney. If China senses weakness and an inability or unwillingness to respond, the chance of an accidental, cataclysmic confrontation becomes almost a certainty.

As an American, I hope that other world powers intervene diplomatically. If ever there were a situation where the UN had a purpose, it would be here to avoid huge military conflicts.

I fear that all sides involved are being locked into their respective positions. Its become a game of poker and everyone keeps raising the stakes assuming the other side is bluffing, but eventually you have to show your hand and the risk of miscalculation is unreasonably high. I think we can all understand both sides arguments for ownership, which means there SHOULD be room for rational diplomacy. Nationalism is the core problem here, therefore both countries are at fault if there is conflict. Europe and Russia should try and mediate here. Who knows, they might even show themselves to be relevant again.

BTW, it should be noted that Obama has rebuffed the new Japanese PM by pushing out his first visit to the US, AGAIN. Clearly this is public diplomacy, suggesting that Japan ease up.

One other point, although I do not want to complicate the matter here, I think it is fairly obvious that this has the potential to play out again and again with the other Chinese territorial disputes. SO maybe instead of looking for simply a way of patching a temporary solution, the entire region should be involved in a long term territorial and resource agreement. This would help China not feel so enclosed and build trust worldwide, which is really in China's long-term interest.

NATO was essential in maintaining peace in Western Europe in the latter half of the 20th century. What we need is similar security alliance based on the existing Japan-U.S. alliance, to cover the whole East and Southeast Asia. PM Abe already suggested "Asia’s Democratic Security Diamond" initiative.http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/a-strategic-alliance-for-jap...

Even TE admits that Japan has territorial conflicts with not just China, but also with South Korea and Russia, in addition to Republic of China (by your definition that's not part of China). So why the sole focus is on China? And why is Japan so belligeent towards China only? Because Japan expects China to back down easily, and US is behind Japan only against China, not Korea or Russia. And China is the only country that is not currently controlling/occupying the territory concerned, while the Russians and Koreans are. Russia has massive military presence on these islands, while South Korea even named its largest warship after Dokdo. China, for being too reconcillatory and pacifist in its NDA and due to thousands of years of Confucius culture, has the habit of compromising for harmony in relationships in case of dispute. However, this encourages belligerance by others, making it the only large country whose territorial integrity is constantly being challenged by hooligan states. Now China is part of WTO and needs to behave by international norms, it should also have the right to defend itself, like everyone else, no exception.

In the SK and Russian case the SK and Russians have defacto control over the islands and Japan has respected this while it pursues its claims diplomatically.
The Senkakus are in the news because China is a bully that seeks to use force to advance its claims.
Nothing is fair about the status quo but the status quo is a path for peace. Those countries (read China) that seek to use violence to change the status quo must be condemned.

Quite the opposite, dude. China has only been using unarmed, civilian patrol boats and tiny plans so far, but Japan has recently sent 8 F-15's and a spy plane to counter a tiny unarmed civilian plane from China near the outskirts of the rocks. This overreaction is totally out of proportion but sends a clear signal. And Japan has staged massive military exercises by soldiers who are trained to speak mandarin Chinese and Fujian dialect, plus Japan has been aggressively building military relationships with the Philippines, Vietnam, Australia, India, Burma, Mongolia...etc. Its intentions are crystal clear.

Why is China sending ANY ships or planes into space that are currently controlled by Japan? Japan does not do this with the islands that South Korea and Russian currently control. It only makes diplomatic appeals because that is the way civilized countries deal with border disputes. But I guess your argument is that China is not a civilized country so we cannot expect such behavoir from China.

China IS the aggressor here and attempts to paint as anything but is a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

As for the relationship with other east Asian nations: it was brought on by China's constant bullying of all of its neighbors who now feel they have no choice but to join forces. I was surprised that the Philippines who was occupied by the Japanese in WW2 now supports Japan rearming. It is clear that the Philippines knows it has nothing to fear from a democratic country with a free press but has a lot to fear from a despotic regime that prevents its own people from learning the truth.

TimAG - A robber took a wallet from a person by force. The person was too weak to fight the vicious robber to get back the wallet. The best result the person got is to allow the robber to hold the wallet and naively hoped the robber to share the wallet with him later. One day, the robber declared that the wallet is his because he bought it from somebody and the robber is then further to say by declaring the wallet is his he is doing the person a favor. Get a life!

Except the "victim" in this case is also a "robber" who stole the territories of Tibet and threatens to steal Taiwan.

International law is not a dispute over a wallet. Possession means something. If Japan annexed the territory in the 1800s it is Japan's now. It makes no difference what prior claims existed.

These are EXACTLY the same rules that China uses to justify its claim to Taiwan and Tibet. So unless China is going to demonstrate a desire to change international law by relinquishing all claims to Taiwan and Tibet it has no case.

We know that is not going to happen because China is an immature bully who thinks it can steal from its neighbors because it is bigger.

Both JP and CN governments have to understand, as both the military power is similar, it is impossible to have a winner within 30 days of war on this island dispute. Both sides need to consider how to stop the war without losing face. Most importantly, there are more than 50% of very poor people living in China, when China's economy is severely impacted by this island war, these poor people will likely go on the street like the Arab Spring or Jasmine Revolution. Together with the rebel separatists from Tibet and Xinjiang, plus Vietnam, Philippines and India, these countries and entities will definitely take full advantage when China is at war with Japan. This will cause a major disaster to the modern China just because of a small island...

There will be a war - but unfortunately it will be between the US and China, not China and Japan as such. The Economist readers, and the Americans for that matter, forget that the US is a Pacific power and a pacific oriented nation. Sadly, it is only a matter of time for a flare up. Worse, the US would prefer a fight while it is still a military hegemon. It currently enjoys a technological augmentation advantage of 8 to 1. That advantage will be erased by the Chinese in the next few decades. The US also has a military that is comprised of nearly 3.5 million veterans of 12 years of war. No one has that kind of size and "expertise" as such. History has taught us two things: (1)small strategic wars (e.g., Afghanistan, Iraq) are precursors to large wars; (2) a country indebted (US) is often motivated to fight its way out of paying its bills to the debtor (China). If there is a war, the Japanese would prefer the fight to happen now - while the Americans are still capable of backing them - then a couple of decades from now, when China can crush the Americans. There are too many unresolved issues in the Pacific, including North Korea and Taiwan, that offer sufficient kindling for a terrible war.

Interesting comment. What is the large war you see as the logical successor to the small wars of your point (1)? What are your thoughts on the war-deterrence potential of China's heavy economic dependency upon the America and its allied Western nations? Do you feel that the potential domestic (economic) repercussions for China of a conflict with America, either directly or though Japan, would be enough to prevent its ever happening, or would this simply have the effect of postponing such an eventual conflict? Is it your sense that such a conflict would involve large troop deployments? If it did, does it not seem that China, with a base population of over 1.3 billion, could assemble and train a capable and large force rather quickly? Do you believe that America's present troops are truly that skilled at ground combat?

Oh stop, the US doesn't want war with China. Comments like yours only inflame a situation. Frankly, it sounds to me like you actually want to see conflict.

The US wants to see China rise peacefully and as a responsible stakeholder rather than rising through bullying its neighbors. I'm not saying I am taking Japan's side (actually I think they should likely be Chinese administered), but that doesn't mean the US should appease China simply to avoid war, as appeasement sets a precedent. The US has a legal obligation to defend Japan, it is that simple.

If China truly wanted to avoid conflict with the US until after it has matured militarily as you suggest then it would remove it's ships and jets until it is better equipped and could easily control the islands at a later date while avoiding conflict all together. China is entering Japanese waters now because it is overly nationalistic - no different than Japan.

Strategically, this war makes sense from the standpoint of the United States. Both Japan and China are the losers since their economies are so intertwined. My guess is that the United States should not participate but reaped the benefits of the conflict. US manufacturing will go up as will the need for our military hardware in that region of the world.

Interesting, but flawed post...
#1 - In today's world, if both sides have nuclear weapons, wars do not occur. Case in point, Pakistan vs. India, they hate each other and skirmish continuously but never have an all-out war. And the only reason why China is flexing its military muscle is because Japan does not currently possess nuclear weapons
Therefore the US would never go to war against China, China's couple of hundred nuclear weapons is more than sufficient as a deterrent.
And similarly, China would never go to war against the US. No matter how 'weak' the US becomes (and all indications are that it will continue to be an economic and military superpower 50 years hence), China will not have the ability to take on the US militarily.
.
#2 - US debt is a non-issue.
a) China holds about $1.7 trillion (just 8%) of total US debt. And 10% of annual GDP. Not enough to sink the currency even if China attempted to liquidate their holdings in one swoop, which it never would given the ensuing trade war
b) The debt is in dollars. Given that every major currency is in a race to inflate, the US can (and is currently actively engaged in) inflate its way out of its debt obligations

It is a pity to see that Japan wants to drag US into a war against China so that she can take over the Daioyu islands over which she did not have sovereignty to begin with. (The island is located much closer to Taiwan's main land than to Japan's.) Japan does not deserve either China or Taiwan to give them the island in view they had senselessly buried/slaughtered thousands and thousands of innocent people when they tried to invade China. I used to be very sympathetic with them after their surrendering to the US upon the drop of two atomic bombs by US. This incident has completely changed my view point towards them altogether - what a shame about what they are doing.

From a strategic perspective, I do not see HOW China could win if it resorted to force to get these islands.

If China took these islands by force (which it can easily do if it wants to), Japan will give up its policy of peace and start building nuclear weapons. Given its technological prowess, it will build up a formidable arsenal in a couple of years.

(And that would checkmate China for the next few decades on the East China Sea)

Japan already has a decent size military. See:
230,000 plus active military personnel
138 ships of all sorts in the navy
including Aegis cruisers and 16 or so submarines
1,000 plus aircraft of all sorts
`
How well its air and naval assets perform in a combat operation is a good question, since they haven't fought a war since 1945.
`
But then again, China's air and naval assets are untested for a modern theater of combat, and that country last fought a war in the late 1970s, in a largely ground conflict with Vietnam.
`
More importantly, it is doubtful the US could stay out of a fight for long, with the treaty with Japan, and the area of conflict not too far from a major set of bases (in Okinawa).

The Diaoyu islands belong to China.
That Japanese today cannot understand the consequences of Nangking or why it was necessary to obliterate (read vaporize) civilian Japanese at 08:15 local time 6th August 1945 to enable the Emporer sufficient "reason" to initiate the end of the war they started in the Pacific, means they are doomed to repeat the same ideological folly.
But! This time China will not be pacified.
The wild card here is action or supposed action from Washington, though I give that a very low probability of tangible result.

I'm suggesting that the dispute is about Diaoyus. I'm suggesting that it's a total lie that the islands belong to Japan since 1800s. Diaoyus were taken from Qing govt during the first China and Japanese war from 1894-1895.

So what's your feeling about the lack of coverage of the deaths during the GLF and CR? How much of a push have you given the Chinese government to recognise these tragedies in a frank, full and unbiased manner?

Whoever engages in the first act of aggression will have their exports boycotted for 1 year.

Whoever retaliates with aggression will have their exports boycotted for 1 year.

Successive incidents of aggression from either side will each be punished by adding 1 more year of exports boycotting.

Such a solution, upon boycott activation/s, will have the byproduct benefit of materially reducing unemployment in Western nations as well a possibly helping Western nations to wean their populations off of their addiction to a wide range of consumer products which products their consumers do not truly need.

That's what Germany thought before 1914... It's quite a bit smaller now. Personally, I'd like to see china loose some of it's provinces: East-Turkestan, Tibet, Occupied Mongolia are good starts. More surely can be found ;-)

Chinese military might? Your army ranks maybe 3rd or 4th in 'projecting power'. Your air force isn't even top 10. Your navy isn't in the top 20. The country that is 1st in all categories has a defense treaty with Japan. So... really? You really want to take on the USA, Japan, and our allies? Maybe China better negotiate nicely or we'll slap a vicious tarriff on all PRC goods, services, and raw materials and all those US dollars you use to buy that military hardware will go 'poof'.

Carried on the wings of propaganda, a small dispute may turn into a disastrous conflict. If propelled by a huge dose of nationalism, the conflict may turn into an uncontrollable war. Now, the question is: what is the nature of this whole spectacle and show of strenght? From my point of view and basing on my historic knowledge serious wars do not break out due to such mariginal territorial disputes (I may be wrong, though). Serious wars start years before they actually break out, they are meticulously planned and prepared for. I am Polish, and this I can say for sure - consider Hitler's preparations for invading Poland. Hitler must have taken our land in order to have stationed his troops and weapons to protect his back, in case Soviets had broken the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact first. All in all, he had it all prepared years before. By skillfully executed propaganda, he had an almost full support of his countrymen. Then he just orchestrated the onset of the war by simultaneously laying claims to Danzig city (and attacking it from sea) and executing previously prepared Provocation of Gliwice's radiotower. What happened next, everyone should know.

So, there will be no war, IMO, at least now. Now we are witnessing something what I call, laying grounds for war by shaping both countries' public opinion attitude. Of course I may be terribly wrong, as I formulate my views basing on incomplete information.

You are definitely right about the 2nd World War having been planned and prepared several years in advance by Germany (although I know some co-citizens of mine who have strange ideas about in their head - very sad). But if you look at 1st World War (of which the 2nd was a kind of sequel, in my opinion), you will see another picture. It started during a time of tensions, but without any long term planning similar to the 2nd World War. All sides slided into it without much thinking, after a long period which was generally peaceful, with some local wars (eg in the Balkans). There even was no single cause for it like the German urge for "revenge" or "Lebensraum" in WWII. Local tensions in and around the Austrian Empire, the French wish to regain Alsace-Lorraine, the German request for "a place in the sun" (more colonies), the English rejection of this and fear for their maritime supremacy, internal conflicts in Russia with the option of a war to suppress them, and probably a lot of other reasons I do not know of.

In effect, one of the most devastating wars of history was triggered by a single terrorist act of one man, Gavrilo Princip.

If you look at the current world state, you will see a number of unrelated, but equally dangerous conflicts, from Africa via the Near East to East Asia. Many conflicts remind one of the situation at the start of WWI, e.g. China as the new manufacturing house of the world, similar to the German Empire, or the Near East situation with Syria, Kurdish lands, Iran, Israel as chaotic as the Balcans at the time.

Maybe this time we are lucky, and the warmongers lose out. History has seen situations as the Cold War, not triggering into a hot war (mostly). But the risk is very high. The best suggestion on this discussion I saw was to boycott all goods coming from the party starting the war.

I agree with lot of the comments here. China, is pressuring Japan to accept their is a dispute! China is also willing to talk with Japan in regards to who will control the islands, but japan still refuses this, and just says go away China we own them. If armed conflict happens, it will be the fault of japan. China, needs to be careful in how it handles the situation. A conflict doesn't help anyone.

We in the west need to support China on this because clearly they just want to resolve this dispute peacefully, if they can.

So China has been provocatively approaching internationally recognized waters/lands with military vessels/planes. That is well documented. You agree China is 'pressuring' Japan about ownership of islands that Japan is the INTERNATIONALLY recognized owner of. Yet you state Japan should 'talk' with China about the ownership. They did... they said 'no they are ours'. That is talk. Just because they are not willing to give in to the 'pressure' does not mean they wish armed conflict. Entering their air and sea space without permission is a provocation. So who is kidding whom here? China will be at fault if shots are fired. Period.

If neither side wishes to back down on their claims - the obvious rational conclusion should be that Japan and China declare the area a de-militarized marine reserve where no economic activity should take place. I understand neither wants international or ICC arbitration. War is not worth a drop of human blood, just for a little bit more fish and gas.

This is assuming that both actors are rational. If both sides are playing the emotional and irrational nationalist card then the best the rest of the world can do is persuade both to back down before this idiocy gains real momentum.

Were conflict to break out, I sincerely hope that it will be at least restricted to the sea as it was in the Falklands conflict. I don't think the USA should get involved over a group of uninhabited rocks, however important they may seem to each side's respective nationalists. The USA may certainly have to get involved if both sides start to target each other's countries, however.

"I don't think the USA should get involved over a group of uninhabited rocks.."
Are you kidding? then how can USA gain from the tense relationship between Japan and China?
If Japan , Korea and China and other Asian nations form Asian community, and create an ASIAN currency which is definitely to replace US dollar as the Master currency which has USD being the current beholder, what will happen to USA?
Imagine the USA cannot print money as she wish?

The US is the country that is pushing Japan towards a confrontation with China. After trying many things else over the last two years, the US has finally found in the Diaoyu island, the possibility of starting a big war in the Asia Pacific region. Japan is nothing but a pawn in the US pivot strategy to Asia. Next month, the Prime Minister of Japan will be visiting the US in order to receive orders.

Yeah, because it makes a lot of sense to start a war with a country that is one of your biggest trading partners and you owe trillions of dollars to. Sadly, the Chinese and Japanese seem to need no encouragement to start a war.

It's fairly simple; the law was symbolic. The US is obligated by treaty to defend Japan in a conflict. It was decided in the 1970s that for the purposes of international law these islands belong to Japan. Maybe that was a bad decision in retrospect, but remember the context - China was still in the dark ages of the Cultural Revolution at the time. No one at the time could have imagined that China would so quickly develop economically while maintaining CCP rule. Plus a lot of these guys in Congress want to look tough on China, which is why a symbolic law like this is perfect for them.
But to return to the original point, the US stands to gain nothing at all from a war between Japan and China.

"The sources of this chauvinism are not entirely clear." Yes, they are. It's being orchestrated by the CCP to distract people from all the domestic problems in China. Fortunately, they probably don't intend to go war, now at least. Unfortunately, wars can start accidentally, and there is certainly a wing of the CCP and much of the PLA that wants a war now. Also, the Japanses right-wing is so deluded about their country's past that you have to wonder if they were planted by the CCP as part of some grand conspiracy.
This conflict has been brewing since the last one ended in 1945. The terms which the war ended on probably had a lot to do with this - Japan was never driven out of China militarily, and even their surrender to the US was conditional (namely, the continuation of the royal family). No doubt, the education systems in these countries has also have a lot to do with each cuontry's selective view of the past. I know plenty of Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese who are very critical of their own government and society, but when this history comes up, they turn into raving nationalists. For whatever reason, the nationalistic sentiments in East Asia are much more like inter-war Europe than Europe after World War II. I guess not enough people died last time for them to see the futility of such sentiments.

lol... great comment! Unfortunately, you may be like many European countries after WWI. Didn't really want to get in the mess between Germany and the others but just got sucked in by geographic conditions.

Following comment applies well to this Economist article:
nkab Dec 24th 2012, 02:02
-
"....But in terms of one subset---the Sino Japanese relationship, IMO, China has done much less well than the US did on its American Japanese relations.
-
Granted the US was then (at the end of WW II, and is now) the most dominant world power and China was among the weakest of the victors of WW II, but a victor nevertheless and Japan did formally submitted and surrendered to China in Nanjing.
But the respective mental attitude of China and America toward Japan, not just the sheer power, set them poles part in terms of influence over Japanese affairs following the war.
-
IMO, China has had foolhardily treated a defeated Japan as an “equal entity” mentally, physically and protocol wise. China the war victor had mistakenly not regarding Japan as war loser and surrender-er in its subsequent dealings with Japan, even to this day. Such approach of kindness did not and does not invite respect nor appreciation from Japanese.
-
To the contrary, the US has had wisely treated a defeated Japan as an “unequal entity” mentally, physically and protocol-ly. US the war victor had correctly regarding Japan as the war loser and surrender-er in all its subsequent dealings with Japan, including its largess to japan, plaza accord, and to this day.
-
Such mentality of approach influenced the continued US stationing of armed forces in Japan that resulted in a “Master-Slave” like relationship that has since dominated American-Japanese relations. Thanks to such vision, such US mentality fitted nicely into today’s US strategic thinking that reduced Japan to a client tool of the US implementation of its strategic positioning. Yet such mentality of approach has also won the respect (or fear) and the appreciation of Japanese (at least on the surface of it).
-
I applaud China’s long standing policy of treating other nations as “being equal” regardless their sizes, but IMO China should now abandon its “being equal” mind set with respect to its former aggressor Japan and instead adopt the American mentality of treating the defeated Japan as an unequal nation that's always a cut below, Japanese economic prowess and military muscle notwithstanding.
-
A switch to such positive attitude may actually be helpful to the resolution of some bilateral issues such as Diaoyu Islands, especially when the US is playing a major role in the matter."
-
This has nothing to do with people-to-people level between Chinese and Japanese, it's the government-to-government policy.

You are, no suprise really, overlooking that the USA also helped fund with both money and material the rebuilding of Japan's infrastructure. China did not. Ergo the Japanese saw us as 'honorable enemies' who defeated them. On the other hand, they tend to see China as an enemy who happened to be on the winning side, but to this day still are seen as an enemy.

The Diaoyu islands issue is a by product of Japan's aggressive expansion program to conquer East Asia in the 19th century. At the end of the first Sino-Japanese war, Japan seized Diaoyu Islands, colonised Taiwan and Korea. To this day, the Koreans like the Chinese have not forgotten what the Japanese did.

Japanese paid heavily in WWII in terms of casualties, over three million deaths out of 71 million. The number of Chinese casualties is around 10-20 million but out of 500 million. So in relative numbers Japanese paid at least the same price as Chinese. Plus the American occupation afterwards for years.

Great Chinese Famine wiped out up to 45 million Chinese in 1958-1961. Where is the anger towards the Chinese communist party?! So it is ok to be angry against Japanese and at the same time DEFEND their own, much more murderous government!?

Not to even mention much more recent Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. Where is the outrage, Chinese people? Or are you taking the easy way out, just blame the Japanese for all the ills of the world...

I think you are missing the point. The Great Famine which admittedly was a mistake by the communist party happened within China and by the Chinese. We are here talking of one country imposing itself upon another in a war of expansion. Japan attacked China.

China “occupies" Tibet in the same manner as UK "occupies" Yorkshire, or US "occupies" Ohio.
Again and again, your brain is terminally damanged, in the best scenario. China's self-inflicted setbacks are too many to mention, but they do not justify Japanese invasion and massacre of Chinese people. Same logic goes that the racial issues in the US does not justify Japan's sneak attack of Pearl Harbor, or Al Qeada's 9/11 attack. Or a Jew cheating another Jew does not justify Holocaust. Got it???

Tim73 - You missed the point again here. Your arguement about WWII is so absourd. If your house is invaded and you're attacked and got injured, but somehow you're able to fight back and kill the intrutor. Are you responsible for his or her death? No doubt there have been many many tragedies happened to Chinese people. We'll work to find the truth of the tregedies. One of them is no doubt the bloody invasion and occupation by Japanese intruders. We Chinese will never forget the atrocity and crimes of Japanese invaders made in WWII. Now we talk about Diaoyus. I'll focus my topic on Diaoyus. It's Japan which broke the status quo and triggered the escalation. It's the point.

Really? Than can you explain why the government of China isn't even living up to the accords of the '17 point agreement' treaty? Why would you need a treaty for an 'integral part' of your country? There has never been a treaty between 'Ohio' and the USA.

His Holiness Dalai Lama said Tibet is a part of China.
So if Tibetans can live in Beijing and Canton, why can't any Chinese live in Tibet?
Tibetan is lucky to be Chinese than Indian or Oriental Gypsy.
Welcome to the Chinese community.

His holiness Dalai Lama said Tibet is a part of China.
So if you and other Tibetans can live in Beijing and elsewhere in China, the law should allow all other Chinese to live in Tibet without any let or hindrance.

After reading this article, I started to understand why most Chinese people don't trust western media and believe there is conspiracy. I'm an overseas CHinese. I've done my research on Diaoyus. It's no doubt that the islands were taken from Qing government during the first war between China and Japan in mid 1890s. For me, it's history and it's fact. I understand Japan had a long period actual control over the islands since 1972 after US ended occupation of Japan in the morden time.
Although I believe that if one stole something from others, no matter how many years he or she had it, he or she is still not the rightful owner, let me just say "yes" there is a sovereignty dispute over the islands between China and Japan based on the fact that Japan had a control for many many years. From China's position, it's probably OK to maintain status quo for the Diaoyus sovereignty issue and the country has promoted to mutally develop the area. Last year, Japnease govt took a step futher in sovereignty dispute and proposed to buy the islands from their current private owner. It's a giant step in claiming sovereignty over the islands and it completely brok status quo. How dire the auther simply discribed it clumsy?! How dire the author pointed all the fingers to China and Chinese people over the escalation of the dispute?! How you can not expect that Chinese people to think there is a conspircy against China over Diaoyus?! Some one stops this maddness!

Maybe I can answer Tibet on behalf of soccernsoccer. Tibet if you do not know was part of China for as long as the Yuan dynasty were around. That is longer that when the first pilgrims set sail in the Mayflower for New England. Does it then mean that the whites in America should give up their lands to the native Americans? Till today, the Tibetans have their language and culture. What happened to the native Indian's languages and culture? They were cleaned out by the whites. Till today, the Tibetans have their language and culture. What happened to the native Indian's languages and culture? They were cleaned out by the whites.

Tim73 - You completely missed my point. My point is the author is completely biased. The auther squarely put entire blame on China for the escalation of the dispute and downplayed Japanese's first move to break the status quo. Nationalizing the islands is a serious if not the final step to claim the sovereignty. How you can expect there is no reaction from the other side of the dispute? How can you only blame the other side, China, for actions taken to counter Japanese's aggression? The auther is taling the islands. The topic is about Diaoyus. Let's please save the arguement on Tibet for anotehr day.

After England was beaten by the USA it became a good follower of USA, similarly after Japan was beaten by the USA it also became a follower of USA.
I am not sure though if Japan is a sincere follower or not because she was nuked twice.
This people is difficult to predict. You know chrysanthemum and the sword eh?